This is what I offered to the meeting on 29 August ...
Next Week’s Meeting Topic is: Towards Collective Praxis. We welcome Elaine who introduces herself and the topic below!
| |||
- Toward
- This word carries the idea that we are living right now, the only
moment that really matters is what happens right now. History, and all
that has happened in the past matters because it is our guide to what
might happen as a result of our actions. The future matters too, because
what we do shapes it.
- Collective - This word
carries the idea that what we do is essentially in the context of living
within humanity and our environment. The individual matters but the
individual cannot live alone. Individualism has become dominant in
recent years -and/but it has always been dominant for the powerful. To
me, collectivism is to do with what we can achieve when we work
together.
- Praxis - This word carries the idea of
both words and actions. Humans communicate through words and affect the
world though our actions.
I see that as really simple! And I see your group as a bunch of people who care about these things - as I see it, your aim is toward meaningful conversations. So, what I'd like to do on Tuesday if you think this suits your agenda, is to take the ideas above- and see where we get to if we talk about them. I will take over the whiteboard and summarise our conversation as we go. I am really interested in seeing where we get to. Let's live in the moment, next Tuesday when we meet. I believe the conversation will be about what really matters to each of us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And my summary of the meeting, as sent to Brian
- Dualisms - reductionism/holism - individualism/collectivism etc.
- What is science? -
- Words change their meaning depending on how and where they are used.
- I wonder about a discussion around Rorty - see below.
Rorty’s “interesting philosophy”
On the view of philosophy which I am offering, philosophers should not be asked for arguments against, for example, the correspondence theory of truth or the idea of the “intrinsic nature of reality.” The trouble with arguments against the use of a familiar and time-honoured vocabulary is that they are expected to be phrased in that very vocabulary. … Interesting philosophy is rarely an examination of the pros and cons of a thesis. Usually it is, implicitly or explicitly, a contest between an entrenched vocabulary which has become a nuisance and a half-formed new vocabulary which vaguely offers new things.
The latter “method” of philosophy is the same as the “method” of utopian politics or revolutionary science (as opposed to parliamentary politics or normal science). The method is to describe lots and lots of things in new ways, until you have created a pattern of linguistic behaviour which will tempt the rising generation to adopt it, thereby causing them to look for appropriate new forms of non-linguistic behaviour, for example, the adoption of new scientific equipment or new social institutions. This sort of philosophy does not work piece by piece, analysing concept after concept, or testing thesis after thesis. Rather it works holistically and pragmatically. It says things like “try thinking of it this way” - or more specifically, “try to ignore the apparently futile traditional questions by substituting the following new and possibly interesting questions.” (Rorty 1989: 8-9, italics added)
- Toward
- the idea that everything is NOW is not revolutionary - and that the
past informs us, and the future is guided by our past experiences and
understandings was not debated. As I see it this is an important
concept that cuts through the question of how much importance we place
on the past, and on current action. We are together now, for a
collective purpose (otherwise we would be somewhere else). The strategy
of listing people's introductory ideas is a subtle way of getting a
sense of what that purpose is today - it is a chance for burning issues
to come up.
- Collective - this word brought out lots of
meaningful discussion and opened up some questions for future meetings.
The strategy of noting those and moving on was important - otherwise we
would have got bogged down - or have drifted away from the purpose of
the meeting. Basically a collective as I use the term is a bunch of
people who are working together on some shared purpose, even though the
purpose might not be clear. The collective this week enjoyed
conversation and spotted some things to investigate further - good stuff
- the result fitted the purpose listed by the participants at the start
of the session.
- According to my dictionary, within Marxism the word praxis refers to "the willed action by which a theory or philosophy becomes a practical social activity" but this is the third meaning of the word. To me, the word reminds me that just talking is verbalism (what is the point) and just acting, without reflecting on the effects, is activism. Praxis is about acting in effective ways on whatever is fundamentally important. It involves both words (ideas) and actions. Therefore, Toward Collective Praxis is about working together to address shared issues and questions. We had spotted some of these questions by the time we got to the end of the session!
- both/and vs either/or
- Brian - this came up as I was writing this note - several of the
conversations this week and last have been either/or conversations -
reductionism/holism - individualism/collectivism. I see all of these as
old school philosophy - where an underpinning assumption is that the
correct logic will lead to the correct statement. This is
fundamentally a waste of time because people who sit in different camps
talk past each other ad infinitum (verbalism). Following the general
drift of Witgenstein is, to me, a much more practical, pragmatic
approach - to explore these ideas within a both/and context - you know
what I mean - complexity theory, systems theory etc. all point to the
notion that everything is understood only in context. I wouldn't suggst
this as a topic for the next month or two - but it is a backdrop idea
that is likely to pop up and grow (yes - I am a teacher and I recognise
that fresh concepts are easy to understand if one has built up some coat
hooks on which to hang it).
- reductionism/holism - individualism/collectivism etc.
- What is science -
- words change their meaning depending on how and where they are used.
And his reply
Hi Elaine
I am blown away by your appreciation of my letters and stuff! I tend to just say things as I thinkand hope it aligns with reasonable logic.
When I joined the Topical Issues Group (TIG) I
sort of wondered why all the content of the meeting wasn’t shared with
others by means of notes and written words. But then I realised a
fundamental
value of the meeting was not to record anything but share the meanings
of words etc. in the moment, albeit fleetingly. This means that
participants can suspend any interpretation or judgement and live with
the flow of variable meanings without nailing them
down. They might even return to the next discussion with an altered
worldview!
So I am a fan of this form of discourse and do understand that it is more dialectic or dialogic than didactic.
For the next session, in the absence of any direction from last week, I will offer the topic “ The constraints of dualistic thinking” where, in ordinary terms, I will probably argue that life involves thinking in the continuum and not just in the opposites. Then you can introduce Richard Rorty and his philosophy maybe to discuss at the following meetup.
As I offered at the last meeting I thought education must decide if it is didactic, dialectic or generative, that is what form of education are we practising here and now? It is important to the learner (and anybody else) that they know they are involved in a didactic exercise or a generative exercise.
ENOUGH FROM ME!
No comments:
Post a Comment